Either Rosberg, Button or Hill probably. HHF was in my thoughts but he never really seemed to click at Williams.

Looking at that list, I think its clear the Williams have long been a facilitator for top talent rather than the final destination for it. Except for Hill, the other drivers I mentioned all went on to do better in other teams rather than with Williams, and thats a fairly common theme a lot of those names.

HHF was an emotionally sensitive character who, shortly after entering F1, his girlfriend ran off and ended up marrying M. Schui, and Villeneuve as a team mate emotionally destroyed him and he failed to get on with Patrick Head. On paper and the lower formulas you would have expected him to be the next Schui it just never happened. I imagine he needed a Smedley type figure to look after him and wrap him in cotton wool in order to get the best out of him but that was never provided.

I think the comparison between the two most recently retired former Williams drivers, Rosberg and Button, is an interesting one. Put a prime Button and a prime Rosberg against each other in a Williams and I'd say it's a very even matchup, but when you have them as teammates in a dominant Mercedes Rosberg would be the clear winner.

I think Montoya and Villeneuve could have done much better than they did and stayed in F1 much longer but they didn't seem to have it in their heads.

JV on the one hand, shot himself in the foot in taking the money. On the other hand, he saw his dad die in an F1 car and one cannot dismiss the fact that he might've always had it in his mind that this is inherently dangerous so if someone offers him truckloads of cash to drive for them, he'd take it without batting an eye. Seemingly that's what he did.

With Montoya however, I've spoken to the man on several occasions (my son and his nephew used to race karts against one another) and his issues with F1 were not that he didn't have "IT". Not even close.

His greatest issue was the political nonsense and business that took precedence over the racing and Ron was focused more on those than racing in some facets and that's what made their relationship so strained and un-amicable. Montoya admitted to me at times he was a little too hot headed to be able to give the proper response and would either say something to further add to the tension or he'd just walk away which also didn't help things, but basically there were too many agendas fueling decisions for too many people and all he wanted to do was race and the racing was lacking a bit at times and that's what made it become boring to him as per a few interviews, but when you speak with him in person and he's just being himself, he gives the impression there was much more left for him to do in F1, but the opportunities at the time were too limited for him to want to waste his time waiting for them to open up for him, and so he left to race in Nascar.

Ironically, Nascar proved even more difficult and uninspiring for him than anything he had ever done before or since and his time there was rather forgetful as a whole. Back in open wheel cars, he's immediately relevant again and IMPO is proof positive his decision to leave F1 was a huge mistake. Had he stayed at McLaren for just one more freakin' year, he would certainly have challenge for the WDC, and possibly won it. While Alonso was beast at the time, I think Montoya at that stage was even better and he might have been the one to keep Lewis in check for at least a season, possibly 2.

I like your story, but to think that Montoya was better than Alonso or would be a match for Lewis is fanciful thinking at best. He could barely live with Raikkonen, forget Alonso. All his talk about European drivers being weak in the head, when he himself was really weak when it came to dealing with anything outside the car.

Raikkonen was a beast on the Michelins, though. These were tyres you didn't have to worry about looking after and Kimi could just go out and do a series of qualifying laps all race long. He was a quick driver then by any standards. So Montoya being competitive against him means he probably was pretty quick, too

Absolutely.

Add to that the car suiting Kimi's needs which meant the car relied more on the front end doing certain things where he prefers to use the rear a tad more the way Alonso does, and that can account for the difference between them, not to mention the relationship (or total lack there of) with Dennis.

While the team did make several configurations of the front end to suit Montoya better, the car's overall design was such that they couldn't change it's inherent characteristics enough to make Montoya fully comfortable to push with his preferred style of driving. Even still I think people are looking at final points tally in assessing Montoya which doesn't paint the full picture. The guy was ferociously fast and so mentally strong even Dale Earnhardt wouldn't be able to intimidate him, so whomever bought into the hype that he was mentally weak in any capacity has their facts wrong.

I think the comparison between the two most recently retired former Williams drivers, Rosberg and Button, is an interesting one. Put a prime Button and a prime Rosberg against each other in a Williams and I'd say it's a very even matchup, but when you have them as teammates in a dominant Mercedes Rosberg would be the clear winner.

Even the definition of "best" is vague IMO.

I wouldn't have said that. When Button got the best car on the grid in 2009, he blitzed his team mate. That was following 2 years in those dogsh*t 'Earth Dreams' Hondas where he and Rubens were fairly evenly matched. If anything it's Button's forté, being able to get the most out of fast cars.

Statistically William's best driver between 1996 and the present day is Jacques Villeneuve with 11 victories over two seasons and a World Drivers Championship. Damon also gained a world championship the year before Villeneuve but only gained 8 victories from 1996.

If Hill was unfortunate not to win more races in 1996, JV was lucky to win many of those he did in 1997. Of his 7 victories (not 8 ) 4 came when a car in front of his had a technical problem (Silverstone, Hungary, Lux, Austria) and in Spain Panis was robbed by Irvine ignoring blue flags for 7 laps.

Basically after race 3 in Argentina, he was lucky to win anything.

Even Argentina had a lot of good fortune. His race pace was poor. Irvine or R.Schumacher never got near him anywhere else. His three closest challenges went out early on. Schumacher, Panis and Frentzen. I think any of them would have won the race had they continued.

Irvine never out races MSC and finished right behind Villenueve so I think Schumacher in particular would have definitely won.

In Brazil he went off at the start and was extremely lucky that Ralf managed to out-Ralf himself and cause a red flag.

Button was Hamilton’s teammate and Rosberg was Hamilton’s. Rosberg beat Hamilton to a WDC so I rate Rosberg higher than Button. Besides the year Button won with Brawn, Barrichello was outperforming him after the first 6 races. Button just banked points early and then Rubens and the Red Bull’s came to life.

I think the comparison between the two most recently retired former Williams drivers, Rosberg and Button, is an interesting one. Put a prime Button and a prime Rosberg against each other in a Williams and I'd say it's a very even matchup, but when you have them as teammates in a dominant Mercedes Rosberg would be the clear winner.

Even the definition of "best" is vague IMO.

I wouldn't have said that. When Button got the best car on the grid in 2009, he blitzed his team mate. That was following 2 years in those dogsh*t 'Earth Dreams' Hondas where he and Rubens were fairly evenly matched. If anything it's Button's forté, being able to get the most out of fast cars.

Well I just think Rosberg would be dominant in quali so more often than not would finish ahead also in the race because as we've seen the driver in the lead after the first corner usually stays there.

I think Montoya and Villeneuve could have done much better than they did and stayed in F1 much longer but they didn't seem to have it in their heads.

JV on the one hand, shot himself in the foot in taking the money. On the other hand, he saw his dad die in an F1 car and one cannot dismiss the fact that he might've always had it in his mind that this is inherently dangerous so if someone offers him truckloads of cash to drive for them, he'd take it without batting an eye. Seemingly that's what he did.

With Montoya however, I've spoken to the man on several occasions (my son and his nephew used to race karts against one another) and his issues with F1 were not that he didn't have "IT". Not even close.

His greatest issue was the political nonsense and business that took precedence over the racing and Ron was focused more on those than racing in some facets and that's what made their relationship so strained and un-amicable. Montoya admitted to me at times he was a little too hot headed to be able to give the proper response and would either say something to further add to the tension or he'd just walk away which also didn't help things, but basically there were too many agendas fueling decisions for too many people and all he wanted to do was race and the racing was lacking a bit at times and that's what made it become boring to him as per a few interviews, but when you speak with him in person and he's just being himself, he gives the impression there was much more left for him to do in F1, but the opportunities at the time were too limited for him to want to waste his time waiting for them to open up for him, and so he left to race in Nascar.

Ironically, Nascar proved even more difficult and uninspiring for him than anything he had ever done before or since and his time there was rather forgetful as a whole. Back in open wheel cars, he's immediately relevant again and IMPO is proof positive his decision to leave F1 was a huge mistake. Had he stayed at McLaren for just one more freakin' year, he would certainly have challenge for the WDC, and possibly won it. While Alonso was beast at the time, I think Montoya at that stage was even better and he might have been the one to keep Lewis in check for at least a season, possibly 2.

I like your story, but to think that Montoya was better than Alonso or would be a match for Lewis is fanciful thinking at best. He could barely live with Raikkonen, forget Alonso. All his talk about European drivers being weak in the head, when he himself was really weak when it came to dealing with anything outside the car.

Raikkonen was a beast on the Michelins, though. These were tyres you didn't have to worry about looking after and Kimi could just go out and do a series of qualifying laps all race long. He was a quick driver then by any standards. So Montoya being competitive against him means he probably was pretty quick, too

While I don't completely disagree with that line of thinking, in hindsight I also feel that the McLaren of 2005 was an incredible car - there is no telling how fast an Alonso or a Hamilton might have gone on it. Kimi's only comparison was a second-rate driver in DC/De la Rosa, and Montoya - both of whom flattered his performances, imo.

As amazing as Zanardi was in CART/ChampCar, "The Pass" was an illegal move that was incorrectly allowed to stand.

Slightly off-topic, but do you remember why it was allowed to stand? In those days, I was able to follow Indycar racing, and did so if able. Having seen Zanardi's huge crash up the Raidillon, I was delighted he was doing so well over there. But I couldn't understand why there was no reaction to this pass.

pokerman wrote:

Fiki wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

mas wrote:

Tier 1 also but I would not mind Hill being classed as a tier 1.5 like say a Button as he could beat the best on his day like Jenson.

That, for me, is the most reasonable view of Hill. He wasn't just an ordinary driver. Clearly he had talent beyond that but when teamed with the likes of Senna and Prost, it was obvious that he wasn't on their level.

I feel it is only fair to bear in mind the role the team plays, in what we get to see of the drivers. It was only after Prost declined to have Senna in the same team again, and after Senna died, that Hill was able to show what he could do.

If a team doesn't believe in you, with or without good reason, you're not going anywhere. Seeing how Boutsen was treated by Williams made that very clear to me.

What he was able to do against rookie teammates instead of tier 1 drivers.

I remember reading a comment by Jabby Crombac, at the time when Prost and Hill were team-mates. He had said/written: "Il y a beacoup de Prost dans ce garçon." I still agree with him, and I find it by far the finest compliment for him.

Going up against the best drivers of the era, I can understand why the team would treat Prost and Senna as number 1 drivers. But Williams did give him his chance, and after Senna's death, he really came into his own.

I'm not very comfortable with this idea of thinking of driver tiers, and less so when there's a need to use half-tiers. Call Hill tier 2 if you wish, I find 2 world titles pretty good going, even if you do have the best car under your bum.

One. One world title. You are very persistent in pushing this agenda but you cannot rewrite the history books. And if you do want to start re-assigning past title winners based on who 'deserved' it then you're opening one hell of a can of worms and Schumacher is not unique in winning a title by punting a rival out of the race or while driving a car of questionable legality. Though on this matter, regardless of what else went on that year, I'd find it difficult to award a 'moral victory' to a driver who beat his main competitor on merit only once all year and failed to outscore said competitor despite him effectively only competing in 12 of the 16 races.

I think the comparison between the two most recently retired former Williams drivers, Rosberg and Button, is an interesting one. Put a prime Button and a prime Rosberg against each other in a Williams and I'd say it's a very even matchup, but when you have them as teammates in a dominant Mercedes Rosberg would be the clear winner.

Even the definition of "best" is vague IMO.

I wouldn't have said that. When Button got the best car on the grid in 2009, he blitzed his team mate. That was following 2 years in those dogsh*t 'Earth Dreams' Hondas where he and Rubens were fairly evenly matched. If anything it's Button's forté, being able to get the most out of fast cars.

Well I just think Rosberg would be dominant in quali so more often than not would finish ahead also in the race because as we've seen the driver in the lead after the first corner usually stays there.

True, Rosberg is the better qualifier but he's only on par with Hamilton really, who Button managed to match on points. Plus when Jenson had the Brawn he was usually pretty good in qualy, when the car was fast.

I think Montoya and Villeneuve could have done much better than they did and stayed in F1 much longer but they didn't seem to have it in their heads.

JV on the one hand, shot himself in the foot in taking the money. On the other hand, he saw his dad die in an F1 car and one cannot dismiss the fact that he might've always had it in his mind that this is inherently dangerous so if someone offers him truckloads of cash to drive for them, he'd take it without batting an eye. Seemingly that's what he did.

With Montoya however, I've spoken to the man on several occasions (my son and his nephew used to race karts against one another) and his issues with F1 were not that he didn't have "IT". Not even close.

His greatest issue was the political nonsense and business that took precedence over the racing and Ron was focused more on those than racing in some facets and that's what made their relationship so strained and un-amicable. Montoya admitted to me at times he was a little too hot headed to be able to give the proper response and would either say something to further add to the tension or he'd just walk away which also didn't help things, but basically there were too many agendas fueling decisions for too many people and all he wanted to do was race and the racing was lacking a bit at times and that's what made it become boring to him as per a few interviews, but when you speak with him in person and he's just being himself, he gives the impression there was much more left for him to do in F1, but the opportunities at the time were too limited for him to want to waste his time waiting for them to open up for him, and so he left to race in Nascar.

Ironically, Nascar proved even more difficult and uninspiring for him than anything he had ever done before or since and his time there was rather forgetful as a whole. Back in open wheel cars, he's immediately relevant again and IMPO is proof positive his decision to leave F1 was a huge mistake. Had he stayed at McLaren for just one more freakin' year, he would certainly have challenge for the WDC, and possibly won it. While Alonso was beast at the time, I think Montoya at that stage was even better and he might have been the one to keep Lewis in check for at least a season, possibly 2.

I like your story, but to think that Montoya was better than Alonso or would be a match for Lewis is fanciful thinking at best. He could barely live with Raikkonen, forget Alonso. All his talk about European drivers being weak in the head, when he himself was really weak when it came to dealing with anything outside the car.

Raikkonen was a beast on the Michelins, though. These were tyres you didn't have to worry about looking after and Kimi could just go out and do a series of qualifying laps all race long. He was a quick driver then by any standards. So Montoya being competitive against him means he probably was pretty quick, too

While I don't completely disagree with that line of thinking, in hindsight I also feel that the McLaren of 2005 was an incredible car - there is no telling how fast an Alonso or a Hamilton might have gone on it. Kimi's only comparison was a second-rate driver in DC/De la Rosa, and Montoya - both of whom flattered his performances, imo.

that's possible, I guess, although I'm sure I remember reading that McLaren themselves were pretty impressed with what Kimi could get out of the car, and in such a data driven environment I'm pretty confident that they would know if Kimi left anything on the table.

Raikkonen was a beast on the Michelins, though. These were tyres you didn't have to worry about looking after and Kimi could just go out and do a series of qualifying laps all race long. He was a quick driver then by any standards. So Montoya being competitive against him means he probably was pretty quick, too

While I don't completely disagree with that line of thinking, in hindsight I also feel that the McLaren of 2005 was an incredible car - there is no telling how fast an Alonso or a Hamilton might have gone on it. Kimi's only comparison was a second-rate driver in DC/De la Rosa, and Montoya - both of whom flattered his performances, imo.

that's possible, I guess, although I'm sure I remember reading that McLaren themselves were pretty impressed with what Kimi could get out of the car, and in such a data driven environment I'm pretty confident that they would know if Kimi left anything on the table.

I would think so, but then again, the only point of reference for them was the other guys driving the car - and I wouldn't call any one of them a tier 1 driver.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, and to me it points to the car flattering the drivers, not the other way around.